From cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Tue Dec 3 19:22:45 1996 Return-Path: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Received: from curry.epilogue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by curry.epilogue.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA13796; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 19:22:45 -0500 Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Message-Id: <9612040008.AA29913@jrdmax.jrd.dec.com> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 96 09:08:55 +0900 From: Norman Diamond 04-Dec-1996 0859 To: Cube-Lovers@AI.MIT.EDU Subject: Re: Rubik's Revenge Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-2022-JP Also spracht der Mouse: >And yes, if you can solve the 3-Cube >and the 4-Cube, no higher order presents any qualitatively new >challenges to a human. Depends on what you mean by a "challenge." Average puzzlers who found relatively ordinary algorithms for the 3-cube and 4-cube will discover that they must find one new algorithm for the 5-cube, but it will be easy. >In theory, the 6-Cube would, because it's the >first one that has one-visible-face cubies that are not on a plane of >symmetry. Even after reading your explanation, I don't quite believe it, but would love to own one and find out for sure :-) Consider that the 4-cube (and 5-cube) can be made harder by forcing the centre (or inner ring) cubies of each face to be oriented. If this is done to a 6-cube then of course the 6-cube becomes harder too. Otherwise I think my 4-cube algorithms would solve a 6-cube. >Incidentally, does anyone know if a physical 6-Cube has ever been made? Someone told Nob Yoshigahara that his country had solved the problem of manufacturing the thing. Then Nob was playing with the guy's business card and lost it, and has never been able to find the guy again. Although Nob is known for a sense of humour at times, he sure wasn't joking when he admitted this. The only questions are whether the unknown person was telling the truth, and who and where he is. -- Norman Diamond diamond@jrdv04.enet.dec-j.co.jp [Speaking for Norman Diamond not for Digital.]